From the Humanist Association - discuss

I am glad that the Queen is a committed Christian. I am glad that Britain is still considered to be principally a Christian country. I am glad there are schools being run with a Christian ethos. I wish there were enough of them for all parents who desire it to send their children to such schools. I don't care about the Bishops in the Lords. I think Justin Welby is an excellent Archbishop of Canterbury.

Long live Christianity.

And I can't believe I've entered into yet another thread about atheism v Christianity, which is sure to lead to trouble.

Great post Jingle

I really don't think we can judge any schools today by any schools Gransnetters may have taught in in the past. Education is changing far too much for that!

Ooh, thank you ab. Praise indeed.

Firstly I apologise for posting in haste earlier and not checking that this iPad hadn't changed what I'd written. To say my comments were garbled is an under statement.

I'm rather shocked by the number of people you know granjura, who lie and cheat, who seem only to think about their own selfish needs. My children went to an Anglican high school. They're in their early 30's now and remain close to many former school friends. I can honestly say I can't think of any families I know who lied or cheated to get their children into that high school, or the equally good comprehensive in our area.

Jingle, I believe there will be a revival , no idea when or why but if one is a Christian one is fully aware of the promise - I am with you always, even unto the end of the world

Given that many church schools are in towns and villages it would not be possible for lies or cheating Iam so I support your post

Jalima If you are concerned about inclusivity, this is stated on the gov.UK site:-

"Local councils are responsible for deciding the RE syllabus but faith schools and academies can set their own.

"They have to follow the curriculum, except for religious studies where they are free to only teach their own religion".

I understand by this that whilst faith schools instruct pupils in accordance with their own religion, they have no legal obligation to provide any sort of education regarding other beliefs. Lord Runcie when he was Archbishop of Canterbury said that engagement with children and young people in schools will "enable the Church to: “Nourish those of the faith; encourage those of other faiths; *challenge those who have no faith.*” Why is it considered OK to express the view that those who have no religious beliefs may be "challenged" about their position but unacceptable to express the view that schools should be religion-neutral?

Can I just say that I am visiting a church school tomorrow as part of my job for the local Diocesan Education Board where I am employed as an educational advisor. I am "current" in my knowledge of practice and schools as it is my job.

Just to put it in perspective: (sorry, more facts and figures)

humanism.org.uk/about/ which states:
'The British Humanist Association (which is a charity) has 40,000 members and supporters.'
'Their celebrants conduct marriages and funerals attended by over 800,000 per year.'

Not everyone who attends a Humanist marriage or funeral is necessarily a Humanist or even realises that the celebrant or service is Humanist unless it is made plain.

A C of E website states:

Key facts about the Church of England:
Church attendance and visits
In October 2013, approximately 1 million people participated in a Church of England service each week. (Statistics for Mission, 2013)
In 2013, approximately 2.4 million people participated in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve. During the same year, 1.3 million people attended an Easter service. (Statistics for Mission, 2013)

60% of Christians in Britain reported having visited a church within the last year and 44% reported having attended a religious service.(ComRes, December 2014)
Around 10 million people visit a Church of England cathedral each year. Each week, around 38,000 people take part in a service within these buildings. (Cathedral Statistics, 2013)

How many people may not be committed churchgoers, but, if asked, would probably describe themselves as 'C of E'?
How many would have attended services such as marriages, funerals or baptisms without describing themselves as Christian at all, just that it was the choice of someone else to have an Anglican ceremony Just like many people would attend a Humanist marriage or funeral without describing themselves as Humanist and could well be Christian.

Eloethan I should have made it plain that my post was from a C of E education website, not my own particular views:
www.churchofengland.org/our-views/education/church-schools-faqs.aspx#re

Ana some faith schools produce good outcomes but equally so do some community schools. That is the myth I am talking about. Church does not equal automatic good results!!! Some have bloody awful results!

There are very mediocre faith schools that some parents want their kids to go to BECAUSE it has a selection element to the admissions and they want to be part of the 'chosen'!

I know of current outstanding community schools in socially mixed areas where kids do really well but some families still prefer to go to the not outstanding church school a bit further away because fewer (in their eyes) "undesirable" kids go there!

There has been much talk of "faith schools" and that is the accepted usage, but is anybody unclear about the origins of what we used to call "church schools?"
Nothing to do with religious teaching, far less indoctrination.
If you have the patience to read his through, it provides the background,
Before the early 19th Century it was largely only children from the upper classes who had any formal education, largely provided through private tutoring. However, during the early and middle part of the 19th Century there was a drive for mass provision of a Christian education for the poor.
By 1851 the Church had established 17,000 schools. Nearly sixty years later the 1870 Education Act brought state provision of public education into being and this Act produced the partnership over education between the state and the church that still exists today. At the beginning of the 20th century there were 14,000 voluntary schools, of which over 1,000 were Roman Catholic, a similar number were provided by the Wesleyans and others, and the majority of the remainder were Church of England. At the beginning of the Second World War, seventy years after the introduction of state provision, the Church still provided schooling for nearly one-third of school-age children.
Difficulty was being experienced in maintaining the quality of premises and equipment, but the schools were still needed in order to maintain education provision nationally. The 1944 Education Act enabled Church schools to choose to become either Voluntary Controlled, and accept a measure of state funding and control, or to remain more independent as Voluntary Aided

So far from being castigated as some sort of pseudo elite seminaries, these were the fore runners of state education for all.
I hope this puts it in context.

I never realised the stats were so huge - only just over 1% of people go to church. It makes sense though; here in Australia similar things are happening - almost all the catholics I know have quietly walked away from churchgoing. Some might still be believers, others are not. This is a secular, scientific age. Dawkins makes sense, the Old Testament does not.

I remember being utterly disgusted as a child, reading the story of Abraham and Isaac (Abe was going to kill his son ‘cos god told him to, and only put his knife away when god let him off the hook.)

The New Testament has some good points, but then there’s Paul with his misogyny, conflicting accounts of the life of Christ, and the horror stories in Revelations. Also, today's powers-that-be ignore the best bits, like the widow’s mite, the good Samaritan, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, the sermon on the mount etc. These are far to ‘socialist’ for some, especially in the USA.

I guess I had been walking away from belief all my life, and eventually I stayed away.

When we were young, churchgoing was the norm - these days it is looked on as weird. But I still have a feeling for the old beautiful church architecture, and the decent aspects of society that grew from the best parts of Christianity.

But, as the saying goes, we don’t need god to be good.

But, as the saying goes, we don’t need god to be good.
And not all Christians are good.

There do seem to be quite a high proportion of RC schools (not Anglican) in Australia.

I just googled it and found this:
Around one in five Australian children attend Catholic schools

Well, the Catholics are good educators (like the Quakers were in the UK) and for many years they gave the only chance of being affordably educated beyond age 13, here in Queensland. That’s why so many of our top politicians are catholic, including our State Premier.. I sent my sons to catholic schools and they both have degrees and good jobs. One teaches at the local co-ed catholic high school, but the years of religious brainwashing are long gone. They learn about all religions, and many catholic school pupils are not catholic; some are Buddhists, Protestants, Hindi, atheist, agnostic, even the occasional Muslim.

Which sounds like a pretty good recommendation or justification to leave them alone, perhaps?

but the years of religious brainwashing are long gone. They learn about all religions, and many catholic school pupils are not catholic; some are Buddhists, Protestants, Hindi, atheist, agnostic, even the occasional Muslim.
(Meant to paste this too)
Isn't that what some of us have been saying?

The system seems to work fine here, anyway. I left the UK in 1979 when Thatcher got elected (NOT a coincidence) so I’m not au fait with things there, even though I read all the online papers - Guardian etc. I loved going to a grammar school back in the 50s and 60s, but my husband absolutely hated his secondary school, so things weren’t right for all of us in the past - just some of us.

Here I decided the local State Schools were below par, so I investigated alternatives and chose the local Catholic schools purely on the merit of the schools. Had I lived in a different area, I might have sent them to a State School. A dotty old priest taught them RE at the junior school. Don’t think they took much notice!! He also taught woodwork and my youngest liked him for that. At senior level they learn about all religions. My son teaches study of Religion at one such school, and invites priests, padres, rabbis, imams etc to talk to his classes. Last time I asked, they liked the rabbi best!!

None of us in the family are personally religious, but - well - live and let live.

Unfortunately the humanist society has become rather militant, they don't believe in live and let live , for years the BBC has run Thought For The Day, just a couple of minutes daily. Now the humanist society has launched a battle to change this , why? The posts on here ranting on about segregation and ghettoes are so unpleasant .

Christians do practice live and let live, the humanist supporters here, some not all, do not

Anniebach I thought it was the secular society who wanted to stop "Thought for the day." I would object strongly to that. I am not a believer but I do no see why those who do have a religious belief should not be free to have their views aired.
I object to the increasing militancy of the secularists on this subject.
To ban such talks is very wrong in terms of the general freedom in our society

As it is, "thought for the day" which is done by people with a religious perspective is rarely about religious doctrine as such, but more often a philosophic out look on daily life.

The TFTD timing when I was at work, was my signal that I should be getting into the car and off to work.

Both have Nellie,

As I understand it, it was being suggested that, along with the thoughts of the speakers representing various religions, there should be an opportunity for a speaker who had no religious beliefs to express his/her thoughts. It's not only religious people that have the ability to reflect intelligently and with humanity on the various issues of our time. How exactly does this refusal to give non-religious people a voice demonstrate a "live and let live" attitude?